Talk:Union Glacier Camp

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

British Overseas Territories Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Antarctica Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Research stations in Antarctica#List of research stations|List of Antarctic research stations]] The anchor (#List of research stations) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

AfD[edit]

Someone named Alan Liefting thinks this is an "Unremarkable location used by an unremarkable company". I must ask what Alan knows about this new base just starting operation in Antarctica. The previous base used by ALE, Patriot Hills, has had an article for more than three years and was viewed 720 times in October alone.

Someone named Alan Liefting thinks that the number of page views is not a measure of whether an article should be retained. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much experience with this. I was not trying to anger you. Perhaps you can cut me some slack. --Icetent (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not angry. The tone of my response was was supposed to read as gently needling rather than any sort of attack. I was trying to point out that "Someone named" was a redundant statement. I am a bit of a pedant. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I am proposing that Patriot Hills and Union Glacier Blue-Ice Runway SCGC be merged here, per WP:MERGE rationales #3 'Text' (both those articles are short and unlikely to grow much larger) and #4 'Context' (all three articles are part of the same operation). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Hills should be excluded from your merger proposal as that is not just a facility but also a notable Antarctic geographical feature as well, so the article has a good potential for development. Apcbg (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article currently only covers the "facility" and makes no mention of the "notable Antarctic geographical feature". If, after merger, you wish to replace the redirect with an article on the latter that meets WP:Notability (and gives just a disambiguation link, or a linked-mention for the facility to this article), then I can see no problem with that. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to Union Glacier Blue-Ice Runway SCGC, which does nothing to establish notability independent of the camp itself. Patriot Hills is trickier - although this is currently very poor, its recent AfD suggests that enough sources exist to create a decent article. However, it might be better to merge now and recreate later, so neutral on that. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the AfD !votes were for merge, and none of the !votes suggested that "significant coverage" exists (only "mention"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]